DOCSLIB.ORG

Philosophical Disagreement and Skepticism Eric Thomas Wilcox University of Missouri-St

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philosophical Disagreement and Skepticism Eric Thomas Wilcox University of Missouri-St University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses Graduate Works 4-19-2013 Philosophical Disagreement and Skepticism Eric Thomas Wilcox University of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Wilcox, Eric Thomas, "Philosophical Disagreement and Skepticism" (2013). Theses. 239. http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis/239 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Philosophical Disagreement and Skepticism Eric T. Wilcox B.A., Philosophy, University of Missouri – Kansas City, 2011 A Thesis submitted to The Graduate School at the University of Missouri – St. Louis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Arts in Philosophy May 2013 Advisory Committee Eric Wiland Chairperson Berit Brogaard John Brunero 1 Abstract: Disagreement is ubiquitous in philosophy. Although this disagreement is sometimes easily explained, other times we find more difficult disagreement arising between epistemic peers. There are a few different ways we can react to peer disagreement in philosophy. Following Hilary Kornblith, I argue that we should suspend judgment in the face of such disagreement. Although I think this is the most rational choice, it eventually leads to an uncomfortable skepticism towards philosophical methods. I conclude that when we examine the reliability of philosophy based on its usual defenses, we find that philosophy is indeed unreliable. “Metaphilosophy is the investigation of the nature of philosophy, with the central aim of arriving at a satisfactory explanation of the absence of uncontested philosophical claims and arguments” – Morris Lazerowitz There are many kinds of disagreement, some which are less problematic than others. Kevin may disagree with Heather about whether You’ve Got Mail is a good movie. A young math student may disagree with his tutor about whether 7 + 5 = 12. Both of these cases are relatively unproblematic. In the first case, one can say that whether you believe You’ve Got Mail is a good movie is strictly a matter of taste. There is no deciding factor one way or the other. Additionally, not much hinges on your preference of that particular (and in my opinion, rather terrible) Tom Hanks movie. We might call this disagreement about taste1. 1 Although there is an extensive literature on disagreement in aesthetics, I’m not trying to address that literature in this example. Also, disagreement about taste could be construed as faulted disagreement (see below) if, for instance, Kevin had not seen the movie or if Heather was a well-known movie critic. 2 The case with the math student is a type of faulted disagreement. Faulted disagreement arises when a disparity of information or intelligence is found between the conflicting parties. For example, the young math student might disagree with his tutor about whether 7 + 5 = 12. He might think that 7 + 5 = 13. But the fact that he disagrees with his tutor is no reason for us, who are mathematically competent, to doubt whether 7 + 5 = 12. The student is young and ill-informed, and thus the disagreement arises from the fact that the student lacks the proper information or intelligence. Many cases of disagreement would disappear if both parties came to have the same level of information. In the above example, if the student came to know all of the relevant facts about addition and quantities, he would thereby agree with his tutor that 7 + 5 = 12. Another example is if someone believed that the capital of Australia is Sydney. Those who have the relevant information know that the Australia’s capital is Canberra. Simply consulting a map would alleviate disagreement in this case. The above cases of disagreement are relatively mundane. There is a more interesting type of disagreement called peer disagreement. Peer disagreement is disagreement that arises between two epistemic peers: understanding, knowledge, and expertise are equally distributed among both parties. But epistemic equality is not enough for the kind of disagreement I want to examine, for both parties might be equally ill- informed; they may both be equally and incredibly stupid about a certain topic. What we want are equally informed and well-informed peers. Although this is an additional Expertise is commonly thought of as a factor in deciding whether the disagreement is faulted or faultless. However in this example, Kevin and Heather are normal movie-goers. 3 qualification, it is not an outrageous one. In fact, we can find such disagreement within philosophy. Here is the layout of the paper. In the next section, I’ll examine peer disagreement in philosophy and some qualities that I think differentiate disagreement in philosophy from disagreement in other fields. From there I will address different reactions towards this disagreement and why I think peer disagreement in philosophy should be met with suspension of belief. However, given that disagreement is almost everywhere in philosophy, philosophy as an epistemic activity seems to be in jeopardy. I will conclude the paper with some common defenses philosophy might have to justify itself as a reliable method. Ultimately, I will put forth the main thesis that philosophy lacks the proper epistemic justification needed in order to be a reliable method towards truth or something reasonably truth-like. 1. Peer disagreement in philosophy Those outside of professional philosophy might find it surprising that there is widespread disagreement in philosophy. After all, philosophers are usually smart, well- informed, and charitable people, albeit a little strange sometimes. However, anyone who has had training in philosophy or has attended a philosophy conference will know that disagreement is ubiquitous2. Philosophers disagree on all types of things. And recently, some philosophers have been worried about how serious we should take this 2 Although philosophers disagree on many things, I would be surprised to find someone who disagrees that there is disagreement in the field of philosophy. The fact of disagreement, it seems, is the one thing on which we all can agree. However, and not surprisingly, how serious we should take this disagreement and whether this disagreement is rational are contested. 4 disagreement. Unsurprisingly, philosophers have disagreed on how we should react to disagreement. Before I get into the reactions to disagreement, there are a few qualities of philosophical disagreement that distinguish it from disagreement in other fields. First, it is persistent. Philosophy has been around for over 2500 years, and we are still grappling with the same questions Plato and Aristotle did in ancient Greece. Second, it is pervasive. We find disagreement not only across fields in philosophy (interdepartmental), but also within very specialized sub-fields (intradepartmental). There seems to be nothing on which philosophers can agree. Last, it is often fundamental. Philosophers disagree not only on the answers to philosophical questions, but also on the fundamentals of philosophy like what constitutes a philosophical question, how one should do philosophy, what philosophy is for, and even what philosophy is3. It is for these reasons that disagreement in philosophy is particularly problematic (Plant 570). Now, it might be just that the work to be done in philosophy is on those areas where there is disagreement. No one need to write about those matters that are settled, such as whether certain obvious logical fallacies are indeed fallacies, or on other obvious truths that no one would deny. One might argue that we do have some agreement – that’s what makes argumentation possible – but we focus as a discipline on the work that needs to be done. And that’s why, at conferences and in philosophy generally, it appears that disagreement is the norm.4 3 In this paper, I will not address the question of what “philosophy” is. For now, my arguments will only apply to analytic philosophy. 4 Thanks to John Brunero for this point. 5 I think this is an overly optimistic view of agreement in philosophy. It seems that no truth is sacred in philosophy; what one philosopher holds as an obvious truth may be held by another philosopher as an absurdity. This may be in part because it is one of the jobs of philosophy to raise doubt on “obvious truths that no one would deny” like, e.g., whether there is a material world. Even the basic method of deduction, a primary tool of philosophy, has been brought into question5. This is why I characterize disagreement in philosophy as pervasive and fundamental. Getting back to disagreement, not all disagreement in philosophy can be construed as peer disagreement. Sometimes conflicts do arise out of misunderstanding or lack of information. However, it cannot be denied that we do find in philosophy the kind of disagreement between peers, both of whom have incredible knowledge and intelligence. A paradigm case of peer disagreement in philosophy is the disagreement found between two well-respected philosophers, Peter van Inwagen and David Lewis. Van Inwagen writes: How can I believe (as I do) that free will is incompatible with determinism or that unrealized possibilities are not physical objects or that human beings are not four-dimensional things extended in time as well as in space, when David Lewis--a philosopher of truly formidable intelligence and insight and ability--rejects these things I believe and is already aware of and understands perfectly every argument that I could produce in their defense? (273) I think this can reasonably be seen as a case of peer disagreement6. We see van Inwagen puzzled by this apparent case of peer disagreement of which he find himself a part. He 5 See Carroll, Lewis. 1895. What the tortoise said to Achilles.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Putting Reasons in Their Place José Ángel Gascón
    Document generated on 09/29/2021 9:19 a.m. Informal Logic Putting Reasons in their Place José Ángel Gascón Volume 40, Number 4, 2020 Article abstract Hilary Kornblith has criticised reasons-based approaches to epistemic URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1075226ar justification on the basis of psychological research that shows that reflection is DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i4.6070 unreliable. Human beings, it seems, are not very good at identifying our own cognitive processes and the causes of our beliefs. In this article I defend a See table of contents conception of reasons that takes those empirical findings into account and can avoid Kornblith’s objections. Reasons, according to this account, are not to be identified with the causes of our beliefs and are useful first and foremost in Publisher(s) argumentation instead of reflection. Informal Logic ISSN 0824-2577 (print) 2293-734X (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Gascón, J. (2020). Putting Reasons in their Place. Informal Logic, 40(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i4.6070 Copyright (c), 2020 José Ángel Gascón This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ Putting Reasons in their Place JOSÉ ÁNGEL GASCÓN Department of Philosophy Universidad Católica del Maule Talca, Chile [email protected] Abstract: Hilary Kornblith has Résumé: Hilary Kornblith a critiqué criticised reasons-based approaches to les approches raisonnées de la justifi- epistemic justification on the basis of cation épistémique en se basant sur psychological research that shows that des recherches psychologiques qui reflection is unreliable.
    [Show full text]
  • Questioning Divination: the Young Augustine and Friends Divination Is Not an Art One Ordinarily Associates with Augustine Of
    Questioning divination: the young Augustine and friends Divination is not an art one ordinarily associates with Augustine of Hippo. His preaching, like that of any other late antique bishop, decisively rejected all forms of magic, and he offered detailed critiques of astrology across many works (e.g., City of God 5). However, Augustine is also an author who gives exceptional—if incomplete—insight into times in his life where he thought differently (see esp. O’Loughlin 1992). In his Confessions and the early dialogue Against the Academics, Augustine paints a series of portraits, of himself but also of lofty and learned associates, who questioned the practical limits of divinatory power. The aim of this paper is to trace out the social context of Augustine’s early and growing skepticism towards divination. The first of the learned men, and the most studied, is the learned Vindicianus, proconsul and sometime court-physician for Valentinian I (Fiorucci 2008). Augustine, who had rejected the help of a haruspex in a poetry contest, did take up astrology. After crowning him the victor, Vindicianus tried to dissuade him, pointing to his own experiences as a young man who had once prepared to become a professional astrologer (Confessions 4.2.3-3.5). Of his reasoning, we hear comparatively little, though Augustine elsewhere lauds him for his medical expertise, whose methods he was able rationally to explain to those who had assumed them sorcerous (Ep. 138.3). The next example is more richly documented. In Contra Academicos 1.6.17-8.23, Augustine’s student Licentius describes a series of divinatory feats performed by Albicerius, a hariolus from Carthage.
    [Show full text]
  • Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of
    SKEPTICISM AND PLURALISM WAYS OF LIVING A LIFE OF AWARENESS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZHUANGZI #±r A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2004 By John Trowbridge Dissertation Committee: Roger T. Ames, Chairperson Tamara Albertini Chung-ying Cheng James E. Tiles David R. McCraw © Copyright 2004 by John Trowbridge iii Dedicated to my wife, Jill iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing this research, I would like to express my appreciation first and foremost to my wife, Jill, and our three children, James, Holly, and Henry for their support during this process. I would also like to express my gratitude to my entire dissertation committee for their insight and understanding ofthe topics at hand. Studying under Roger Ames has been a transformative experience. In particular, his commitment to taking the Chinese tradition on its own terms and avoiding the tendency among Western interpreters to overwrite traditional Chinese thought with the preoccupations ofWestern philosophy has enabled me to broaden my conception ofphilosophy itself. Roger's seminars on Confucianism and Daoism, and especially a seminar on writing a philosophical translation ofthe Zhongyong r:pJm (Achieving Equilibrium in the Everyday), have greatly influenced my own initial attempts to translate and interpret the seminal philosophical texts ofancient China. Tamara Albertini's expertise in ancient Greek philosophy was indispensable to this project, and a seminar I audited with her, comparing early Greek and ancient Chinese philosophy, was part ofthe inspiration for my choice ofresearch topic. I particularly valued the opportunity to study Daoism and the Yijing ~*~ with Chung-ying Cheng g\Gr:p~ and benefited greatly from his theory ofonto-cosmology as a means of understanding classical Chinese philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2020 David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance Jarrett Delozier [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Intellectual History Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Delozier, Jarrett, "David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance" (2020). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/2382 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DeLozier 1 Introduction In the history of philosophy of religion and natural theology, David Hume is an immensely influential contributor. One of his most important works in the field is his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which contains his greatest treatment of natural theology, specifically the design argument. However, there’s a big problem which the Dialogues present to understanding Hume. Eleven of the twelve parts of the Dialogues contain Hume’s sharp criticisms and attacks on the Design argument. But in the final part, in what is often called “Philo’s Reversal,” he seems to completely reverse course by renouncing his skepticism and endorsing the Design argument.
    [Show full text]
  • Veritism, Values, Epistemic Norms (Rysiew)
    late-stage version 1 Veritism, Values, Epistemic Norms PATRICK RYSIEW 1. Introduction Stephen Grimm observes that “[a]mong contemporary epistemologists, perhaps the most prominent way to make sense of our epistemic evaluations is in teleological terms” (Grimm 2009, 243). Specifically, many epistemologists take it that what has fundamental value in the epistemic domain is truth -- or, more properly, true belief. From this, the teleological account of epistemic appraisal to which Grimm refers naturally follows: other epistemic goods besides true belief -- justification, evidence, reasons, and so on -- have epistemic value because they are appropriately related to that telos.1 (There is, of course, significant disagreement as to what the appropriate such relation is, exactly.) Such a truth-oriented approach to understanding epistemic value and assessments is a core theme of Epistemology and Cognition, and indeed of Alvin Goldman’s epistemological writings as a whole. Thus, in the former work, we’re told that “[t]he central epistemological concepts of appraisal…invoke true belief as their ultimate aim” (1986, 3), that “true belief is a prime determinant of intellectual value” (ibid., 98), and that the appropriate criteria of epistemic rightness are all truth-linked (ibid., 116). In later works, the same underlying idea, now dubbed ‘veritism’, is defended: “the cardinal [epistemic] value, or underlying motif, is something like true, or accurate belief” (2012, 52); and various intellectual virtues (2002) and public institutions and practices
    [Show full text]
  • Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, and Heidegger
    German Philosophers: Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, and Heidegger Daniel Ferrer at Matrin Heidegger’s Todtnauberg haunt (Die Hütte, Rütte, Todtnauberg, Black Forest, Schwarzwald, Germany) By Daniel Fidel Ferrer 1 2011 Daniel Fidel Ferrer. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, digital, optical or by any information storage and retrieval system now known or hereafter invented; or otherwise without the prior permission in writing and signed by the author, Daniel Fidel Ferrer. Photo of Daniel Fidel Ferrer at Heidegger’s Todtnauberg haunt copyright ©Daniel Fidel Ferrer. Photo taken by Dr. Harald van Veghel with my 35 MM camera. Location: front page, title page. Die Hütte, Rütte, Todtnauberg, Black Forest, Schwarzwald, Germany, Deutschland. Some brief cataloging. Ferrer, Daniel Fidel (1952- ) German Philosophers: Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, and Heidegger Includes bibliographical references. Index. 1. Ontology. 2. Metaphysics. 3. Philosophy, German. 4.Thought and thinking. 5. Kant, Immanuel, 1724-1804. 6. Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von, 1775-1854. 7. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 1770-1831. 8. Philosphy, Asian. 9. Philosophy, Indic. 10. Philosophy, Modern -- 20th century. 11. Philosophy, Modern -- 19th century. 12. Practice (Philosophy). 13. Philosophy and civilization. 14. Postmodernism. 15. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 1844-1900. 16. Heidegger, Martin, 1889-1976. -- 17. g r una nd cent. I. Ferrer, Daniel Fidel, 1952-. Dedication and Acknowledgements Family members. Families: Ferrer, Reavis, Kuhn, Lindstrom, Schmidt, and Yeager.
    [Show full text]
  • “Forms of Philosophical Skepticism”
    “Forms of Philosophical Skepticism” James Conant Handout of Quotations, Examples, and Other Things I. Russell and the Nomads 1. Bertrand Russell’s Table Any statement as to what it is that our immediate experiences make us know is very likely to be wrong. It seems to me that I am now sitting in a chair, at a table of a certain shape, on which I see sheets of paper with writing or print…. All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything. Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a form that is wholly true. To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table. To the eye it is oblong, brown and shiny, to the touch it is smooth and cool and hard; when I tap it, it gives out a wooden sound…. [Then Russell proceeds to consider each of these qualities of the table.] The shape of the table is no better. … [T]he 'real' shape is not what we see; it is something inferred from what we see. And what we see is constantly changing in shape as we, move about the room; so that here again the senses seem not to give us the truth about the table itself, but only about the appearance of the table. … Thus it becomes evident that the real table, if there is one, is not the same as what we immediately experience by sight or touch or hearing.
    [Show full text]
  • Quine's Naturalized Epistemology, Epistemic Normativity
    Quine’s Naturalized Epistemology, Epistemic Normativity and the Gettier Problem Dr. Qilin Li ([email protected]; [email protected]) The Department of Philosophy, Peking University Beiijing, P. R. China 100871 W. V. Quine is one of the most prominent advocates of the naturalistic approach to epistemology and he argues that epistemology should be naturalized and transformed into a sub-discipline of psychology and hence a chapter in science. In his famous paper “Epistemology Naturalized,” Quine starts to compare epistemology with the logical and set-theoretical studies of the foundations of mathematics. Similar to the studies of the foundations of mathematics, as Quine suggests, epistemological studies, which are “concerned with the foundation of science” (Quine 1968, p. 69), can be divided into two sorts— one is conceptual and the other is doctrinal. Quine further argues that the conceptual ones are concerned with meaning of our material object concepts, which are clarified by reducing them into sense experience concepts; and, on the other hand, the doctrinal ones are concerned with truth of our material object beliefs, which are established by deducing them from the premises about observations. According to Quine, both sorts of studies in traditional epistemology are doomed, since traditional epistemology shows no real advantages over sciences, especially psychology. Thus, Quine advocates that we should abandon this traditional epistemology; but this does not imply the death of epistemology per se, since epistemology can still go on “in a new setting and a clarified status” (Quine 1 1968, p.82). We should embrace this new epistemology, i.e., naturalized epistemology, which “falls into place as a chapter of psychology and hence of natural science” (Quine 1968, p.82), in other words, unlike traditional epistemology, new epistemology “is contained in natural science, as a chapter of psychology” (Quine 1968, p.83).
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Scepticism 2018
    The University of Manchester Research Philosophical Scepticism and the Aims of Philosophy DOI: 10.1093/arisoc/aox017 Document Version Accepted author manuscript Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer Citation for published version (APA): Beebee, H. (2018). Philosophical Scepticism and the Aims of Philosophy. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 118(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/arisoc/aox017 Published in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Takedown policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providing relevant details, so we can investigate your claim. Download date:02. Oct. 2021 AUTHOR-ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT; PLEASE DO NOT CITE Forthcoming in The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 2018 Philosophical Scepticism and the Aims of Philosophy1 Helen Beebee Department of Philosophy, University of Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK Abstract I define ‘philosophical scepticism’ as the view that philosophers do not and cannot know many of the substantive philosophical claims that they make or implicitly assume.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics, Time, and Confirmation
    Mathematics, Time, and Confirmation Ulrich Meyer Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of Cambridge, 1995 Submitted to the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy in partial fulfil- ment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. September 2001 Author: ................................. .. .... Department of Linguistics aKPhilosophy August 10, 2001 Certified by: .......................... Robert C. Stalnaker Professor of Philosophy Thesis Supervisor Accepted by: .............. Vann McGee Professor of Philosophy Chair, Committee on Graduate Students @Ulrich Meyer 2001. All rights reserved. The author hereby grants permission to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to reproduce and distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis in whole or in part. MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY OCT 11 2001 ARCMly LIBRARIES Mathematics, Time, and Confirmation by Ulrich Meyer Submitted to The Department of Linguistics and Philosophy on 10 August 2001 in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ABSTRACT This dissertation discusses two issues about abstract objects: their role in scientific theories, and their relation to time. Chapter 1, "Why Apply Mathematics?" argues that scientific theories are not about the mathematics that is applied in them, and defends this thesis against the Quine-Putnam Indispensability Argument. Chapter 2, "Scientific Ontology," is a critical study of W. V. Quine's claim that metaphysics and mathematics are epistemologically on a par with nat- ural science. It is argued that Quine's view relies on a unacceptable account of empirical confirmation. Chapter 3, "Prior and the Platonist," demonstrates the incompatibility of two popular views about time: the "Platonist" thesis that some objects exist "outside" time, and A.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Skepticism Charles Landesman (Editor), Roblin Meeks (Editor)
    To purchase this product, please visit https://www.wiley.com/en-ug/9780470693476 Philosophical Skepticism Charles Landesman (Editor), Roblin Meeks (Editor) E-Book 978-0-470-69275-2 April 2008 £92.99 Paperback 978-0-631-21354-3 October 2002 Print-on- £33.25 demand Hardcover 978-0-631-21353-6 October 2002 Print-on- £103.00 demand O-Book 978-0-470-69347-6 April 2008 Available on Wiley Online Library DESCRIPTION Philosophical Skepticism provides a selection of texts drawn from the skeptical tradition of Western philosophy as well as texts written by opponents of skepticism. Taken together with the historical introduction by Landesman and Meeks, these texts clearly illustrate the profound influence that skeptical stances have had on the nature of philosophical inquiry. • Draws a selection of texts from the skeptical tradition of Western philosophy as well as texts written by opponents of skepticism. • Spans centuries of skeptical and anti-skeptical arguments, from Socrates to Rorty. • Includes essays by Plato, Cicero, Diogenes Laertius, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, Russell, Quine, Nagel, and many others. • Provides a solid foundation for further study. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Charles Landesman is Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Hunter College and the Graduate School of the City University of New York. His previous publications include Discourse and Its Presuppositions (1972), Color and Consciousness (1989), The Eye and the Mind (1993), and An Introduction to Epistemology (Blackwell 1996). Roblin Meeks is a faculty member of the Expository Writing Program at Harvard University. He is currently at work on a book about self-identification. FEATURES • • Draws a selection of texts from the skeptical tradition of Western philosophy as well as texts written by opponents of skepticism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History
    The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History 1960 FIRST COLLOQUIUM Wilfrid Sellars, "On Looking at Something and Seeing it" Ronald Hepburn, "God and Ambiguity" Comments: Dennis O'Brien Kurt Baier, "Itching and Scratching" Comments: David Falk/Bruce Aune Annette Baier, "Motives" Comments: Jerome Schneewind 1961 SECOND COLLOQUIUM W.D. Falk, "Hegel, Hare and the Existential Malady" Richard Cartwright, "Propositions" Comments: Ruth Barcan Marcus D.A.T. Casking, "Avowals" Comments: Martin Lean Zeno Vendler, "Consequences, Effects and Results" Comments: William Dray/Sylvan Bromberger PUBLISHED: Analytical Philosophy, First Series, R.J. Butler (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell's, 1962. 1962 THIRD COLLOQUIUM C.J. Warnock, "Truth" Arthur Prior, "Some Exercises in Epistemic Logic" Newton Garver, "Criteria" Comments: Carl Ginet/Paul Ziff Hector-Neri Castenada, "The Private Language Argument" Comments: Vere Chappell/James Thomson John Searle, "Meaning and Speech Acts" Comments: Paul Benacerraf/Zeno Vendler PUBLISHED: Knowledge and Experience, C.D. Rollins (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964. 1963 FOURTH COLLOQUIUM Michael Scriven, "Insanity" Frederick Will, "The Preferability of Probable Beliefs" Norman Malcolm, "Criteria" Comments: Peter Geach/George Pitcher Terrence Penelhum, "Pleasure and Falsity" Comments: William Kennick/Arnold Isenberg 1964 FIFTH COLLOQUIUM Stephen Korner, "Some Remarks on Deductivism" J.J.C. Smart, "Nonsense" Joel Feinberg, "Causing Voluntary Actions" Comments: Keith Donnellan/Keith Lehrer Nicholas Rescher, "Evaluative Metaphysics" Comments: Lewis W. Beck/Thomas E. Patton Herbert Hochberg, "Qualities" Comments: Richard Severens/J.M. Shorter PUBLISHED: Metaphysics and Explanation, W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. 1965 SIXTH COLLOQUIUM Patrick Nowell-Smith, "Acts and Locutions" George Nakhnikian, "St. Anselm's Four Ontological Arguments" Hilary Putnam, "Psychological Predicates" Comments: Bruce Aune/U.T.
    [Show full text]